JOIN USThere were, however, some who referred to it as a “panchayat ruling” seeking to make all parties happy. Union Law minister M Veerappa Moily said, “Let the judgment come in full and then we will comment on it. We are custodians [of the Ayodhya land] no doubt, we will step in if necessary, but there is no contingency now.”
Supreme Court senior advocate P P Rao said he was disappointed over the ruling and said no party to the dispute had asked for a division of property. The verdict should depend on the prayers sought for and prayers should either be rejected or granted. “You cannot create a new prayer,” he said.
Senior Advocate Rajiv Dhawan said the High Court had over stepped its jurisdiction. “Any of the litigants will go on appeal to the Supreme Court. It is a question of whether the HC laid a bad foundation. It is extremely one-sided. You should know to whom the property belonged. You cannot say, ‘we cannot answer this so divide it’. Whom the site belongs to should have been clearly answered,” he said.
Harish Salve, senior advocate, said one should wait for the judgment before making any reactions. “Everybody is happy. It is a good decision that every party has been awarded,’’ Salve said.
According to Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, everybody is jumping the guns without reading the judgment. “If the judgment is overreached, it is part of the court order,’’ he said, justifying the reasoning of the judges of the High Court.
Mohan Katarki, also an apex court advocate, said, “The HC rightly focused on the right to worship instead of getting lost in the title-to-land, coming to a balanced view that protected larger interests of both the Hindus and the Muslims.”